Widespread indulgence of bad faith, no matter how transparent, and treating people who call out bad faith as the problem, is a big part of How We Got Here.

"Assume they have a better argument, based on something you find reasonable, even if you disagree with their conclusion."

No. Why should we?

<3 It's perfect

Aha! got it!

(I figure you have the best idea of who might appreciate one! :) )

Woo!! (How do I gift a membership btw? Should I just double my sub and you can gift it to someone?)

I'll gift a $120/yr founding membership to someone if you have a group picture

I've seen estimates between 100,000-200,000 gallons/day (which is still a lot, don't get me wrong!) but I haven't been able to find anything suggesting an "average golf course in the US" has the "potential to use on average... 2 million gallons of water per day." 2/2

Honest question -- do you have the source for the upper end of the estimate in the article for golf courses? ("The United States’ 16,000 golf courses, meanwhile, each have the potential to use on average between 100,000 to 2 million gallons of water per day.") 1/2

(Sorry, deleted an earlier reply asking about Venmo -- I should have looked further down the page!!)

That, plus the absurd use of professed incompetence of the Executive Branch ("we can't move the money even if we tried!"), and how that's somehow accepted (or at least proffered) as a legitimate excuse.

(Outside of potential corner solutions or non-convexities in production -- e.g., adding 100 GWs of firm load makes fusion power more profitable in expectation which leads to a breakthrough, or adding one more data center "allows" for one NGCC to replace a handful of inefficient ST/CTs. 2/2)

Interesting claim regarding *both* reliability and costs.

As a PhD energy economist myself, I'm having a bit of trouble. The standard 99.999% availability cited for them undermines their use as DR and increases local capacity requirements. Where are the reliability *and* cost benefits? (1/2)

Is it possible to gift a subscription?

(Sorry, know it's old, but OP got linked to given recent events hah). I was struck by the same thing! I kind of thought the main signal value of nuclear tests now was to prove capability -- I understand their potential value for NK or Iran; do we need to prove to the world we still have nukes??

Point being: the "whole context" for the statement includes those earlier statements made by the WH (and Trump specifically), it doesn't just end at the question. 2/2